Dear Frameworks,
Thanks to everyone for their suggestions for this admittedly vague request.
Alan, I assume that you’re referring to BLUE TAPE, which I haven’t been able to
see, but will jump at the chance next time it presents itself. Carl, I also
thought of A&B IN ONTARIO, but had forgotten about SWAMP – thanks for reminding
me. Marilyn, I must confess that BLUE MOSES never crossed my mind, but I’ll
look at it again; MADE MANIFEST is one of the few Brakhage films I haven’t
seen, so I’ll have to prioritize it the next time I’m renting some prints.
Scott, can’t wait to see your film, and thanks to Albert for the Dan Graham
suggestions, which certainly fit.
Dave, yes, I think the term “participatory” is the weakness here, which is too
general and potentially all-encompassing to have much explanatory force. Of
course, we can all think of hundreds of films in which the handheld camera
provides evidence of the filmmaker’s subjectivity and seems to represent a
first-person physical response to the events depicted – not representing a
state but enacting it, on some level. I suppose that in my inquiry, I was
thinking of two slightly different things. One might be called a “shared
camera” or “dialogic camera” (although I’m not sure I like the literary
connotations of the latter term) (the Brakhage, Schneemann examples), where the
handheld camera is traded between partners. Another might be a kind of “public
camera” or “social camera” or something like that (Scott’s film, maybe the Joe
Gibbons films where he shoplifts books), where a social performance or
interaction is orchestrated such that the camera’s involvement becomes integral
to or even a prerequisite for its realization. What was I thinking with
CHRISTMAS ON EARTH? Maybe a “mimetic camera” (I think Ara Osterweil writes
about this in Flesh Cinema) where the camera’s movements imitate the onscreen
actions or movements of its participants.
All very fuzzy, of course, and not totally developed, but I suppose that my
request for examples was in part about trying to iron out or understand some of
these differences, so thanks to everyone for giving me things to consider!
Best,
John
On Tuesday, October 29, 2019, 05:45:45 PM CDT, Dave Tetzlaff
<[email protected]> wrote:
It might help if you could be more specific about any difference between your
concept of “participation” and the tradition of “first-person camera” or
“subjective camera”. Such a technique implies some agent, represented by the
camera that does in some sense "participate in the actions depicted, rather
than simply observe.” The way you describe your examples though seems to imply
we understgand the camera AS a camers, foregrounding the physical act of
filming as an element of the pro-filmic event. But the distiction isn’t
necessarily that clear. In Fuses, there’s the implication that we’re seeing the
perspective of Kitsch the Cat, and the camerawork in the CU reel of Christmas
on Earth isn’t obviously intended to be read as “participatory camera” vs.
just, say, “psychedelia” in the text itself - ( you have to know extra-textual
stuff about Barbara Rubin and the production of the film. Perhaps you could
clarify by listing some familair films that would be OUTSIDE the realm you
seek. For example, what about Anticipation of the Night? Or what about less
experimental examples of cinema verite, where the camera-operator is a
participant (e.g. Sherman’s March)?
Either way, Pennebaker’s largely (understandably?) overlooked “One P.M.” might
fit...
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks _______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
